USA > New Hampshire > History of New Hampshire, Volume I > Part 23
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31
3 N. H. Prov. Papers, IV. 669.
274
NEW HAMPSHIRE
that we are worryed to Distraction with this Governor & the Lord send us a Deliverance."4
The above citations present a vivid picture of the political intrigues going on at Portsmouth, where the council were in league with Governor Belcher in seeking to restore the old union of New Hampshire with Massachusetts, while members of the house were endeavoring to obtain another governor and thus to be entirely separate from Massachusetts. In this controversy the people sided with the house of representatives, and when the latter was dissolved five or six times in rapid succession by a petulant and wilful governor, the same persons were reelected to form a new house. Thus no progress was made in legislation. The house would not lay taxes upon the people and raise money needed to pay current expenses, and the governor and council would not agree to a large issue of bills of credit. Thus the deadlock existed for two years or more.
The house of representatives wanted emissions of paper money, redeemable ten years or so later. Few governments seem to be willing to pay expenses as thy go. It is so much easier apparently to issue paper money in the way of bonds or other securities and let the next generation pay the bills of the present time. Such bills of credit are necessary in times of great stress and urgency, occasioned by war, famine, earthquake or plague, but for the payment of the regularly recurring expenses of town, county and state the people should be taxed enough annually. The house of representatives allowed bills to accumulate for several years, till in 1736 the budget amounted to six thousand five hundred pounds, for which bills of credit were issued, four thousand pounds being redeemable in 174I and the rest the fol- lowing year. For the purchase of these bills payment could be made in silver, hemp, flax or bars of iron, at stated prices, and the prices fixed were sufficient to encourage the growth of the industries involved. When private merchants combined to issue paper money to supply the place of currency, the governor issued a proclamation against them and denounced them before the assembly, and when the latter tried to vindicate such currency, the Governor dissolved them with vigorous use of uncompli- mentary adjectives, the justice of which they were unwilling to
4 N. H. Prov. Papers, IV., pp. 836, 840.
275
A HISTORY
admit, and they told him so in language more dignified than his own.
Allusion has been made, in the letter of Theodore Atkinson, to obstructions put in the way of Colonel Dunbar as surveyor of the king's woods. Here he came into conflict with many trespassers, who could not be entirely restrained from cutting pine trees reserved for royal masts. He had authority to seize logs cut from such pines, and the claimants had to prove their property in the court of admiralty, where decision rested with the judge alone and no jury could be summoned. Colonel Dunbar went to saw-mills and in an offensive manner seized private property, which irritated the owners as much as would the confiscation of their lands. At Dover Dunbar and Paul Ger- rish threatened each other with death, in case a pile of boards were removed or not removed, and Dunbar made prudence the better part of valor, leaving the boards to Gerrish. Some agents of Dunbar were sent to Exeter for a like purpose, and at nine o'clock in the evening, at the inn of Captain Samuel Gilman, they were beset by a disguised gang of malcontents, who beat and abused them so that they narrowly escaped with their lives. Moreover the rigging of their boats was cut and holes were made in the bottoms of the boats, so that they were obliged to return to Portsmouth in the morning on foot. A proclamation for the arrest of the rioters was issued after six days,-not many months as Theodore Atkinson wrote,-but the rioters had been dis- guised as Indians, and no witnesses could be found against them.
Thus Colonel Dunbar, in his office as lieutenant governor and as surveyor of the woods, found himself opposed by the governor, the council and the people. From the first the gov- ernor wanted to get rid of him and have Henry Sherburne appointed in his place, and if that could not be, then he favored Anthony Reynolds. The assembly never voted Dunbar any salary nor presents, as they had done to all former lieutenant governors. Insulted, neglected and abused, he retired for two years to his home near Pemaquid. On his return to Portsmouth Governor Belcher somewhat relented and made him commander of fort William and Mary, at New Castle. This post gave him an income of about fifty pounds, and he gathered in three hun- dred pounds more from his office as surveyor, out of which he
276
NEW HAMPSHIRE
had to pay his deputies. He was not allowed even to preside at the sittings of the council, in the absence of Governor Belcher, a privilege which had always been accorded to preceding lieuten- ant governors, but he was not, as they had been, appointed also as councilor. In 1737 Dunbar went to England to further his plans to be made governor, where he was thrown into prison for debt. His liberation was effected by Mr. Thomlinson, and although he could not secure his own appointment as governor he had influence enough in London to work the downfall of Belcher. In 1743 Dunbar was appointed by the East India Company governor of St. Helena.
The petition sent to London in favor of Governor Belcher seems to have produced no effect other than that three new councilors were commissioned that caused him great annoyance. These were Benning Wentworth, Theodore Atkinson and Joshua Pierce, all opponents of Belcher. It was probably thought best to give both parties a fair representation in the council, so that the governor might not have too free a hand in tightening the reins of government. These men were kept out of their seats in the council for two years on some pretext about the administration of their oaths. Meanwhile they were chosen by the people as members of the house of representatives, and even then Governor Belcher claimed to make himself judge of elections and sought to exclude Joshua Pierce from the house. The house refused to choose a speaker or do any business till Pierce was properly seated. Here also he was forced to yield to the persistent opposition of the people and their representa- tives in defense of what they conceived to be their right accord- ing to English law and custom. The house told the governor that they were the sole judges of the due or undue election of representatives and that if the governor had "authority upon pretense of undue elections to prevent any member from acting in the House, it would be a power in a manner equal to that of choosing the Assembly himself," and that even the king never pretended to examine the due or undue elections of members of parliament.
Such little touches upon the historic canvas are of import- ance as showing the growth of the democratic spirit and power. The age-long struggle between the masses of people and the
277
A HISTORY
aristocratic few has not yet ended. The Lords in England are facing deprivation of power or extinction at the hands of the House of Commons. Similar oppositions in this country have arisen between the Senate and the House in congress. When the council, the senate, or the judiciary are thought to be nullify- ing the will of the people at large, then the former are forced to give way, or they will become representatives of the people by direct election rather than by appointment of kings and legis- latures. An Upper House, not constituted by the people them- selves, has always been meant to be a check to the wishes and aims of the people, as expressed in the Lower House. More and more the conviction is growing that no such check is needed. The representatives of New Hampshire felt this nearly two centuries ago.
In 1730 the house voted that the four quarterly courts of sessions and inferior court of common pleas should be held in the four original towns, at Portsmouth in December, at Exeter in March, at Dover in September, and at Hampton in June, and this became law the following year. The practice was found convenient for the people, but Colonel Dunbar wrote to the board of trade in London, remonstrating against it. The act in consequence was disallowed, and after 1735 all the courts were held in Portsmouth.5
In 1732 the erection of an Episcopal church began in Ports- mouth, near the site of the present St. John's church. Theodore Atkinson was one of the leaders in this movement and Mr. Thomlinson, besides contributing liberally himself, procured financial assistance in London. "It was called Queen's church in honor of Queen Caroline, consort of George II, who gave the books for the altar and pulpit, the plate, and two mahogany chairs which are still in use." Atkinson wrote to Thomlinson about it in 1734 thus,-"The Governor may make what pre- tences he pleaseth but he is the greatest Enemy the Church of England hath upon this Continent, I believe & had it not been for him, I believe, ours in this place would have been finished, but he upon being asked whether he would contrybute towards it said, not as a Church, but if the Proprietors would make a
5 Belknap's Hist. of N. H., p. 233.
278
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Stall-house of it he would give Twenty or Thirty pounds."6 He says also that this was the first church ever erected in the province and was carried on by the chief people therein, whose good example, he hoped would be very prevalent in neighboring towns. In Portsmouth "upwards of one hundred families of the best sort of People already declared their fixed and deter- mined resolution, & such as without whose help this town will scarce ever be able to maintain another Desenting Minister when either of those now here shall be removed." The church had already cost two thousand pounds. Its adherents had to pay the usual tax to support the dissenters and subscribed freely toward the salary of the Rev. Arthur Brown, who continued with them till 1773. His salary was paid in part by the society for propa- gating the gospel in foreign parts.
At the very beginning of his administration Governor Belcher called attention to the need of revising the laws, of put- ting all grants, deeds and public papers into proper condition and of erecting a handsome court house in Portsmouth, but such were the poverty of the province and the oppositions between the governor and the people that his advice was disregarded. Bills of credit were already worth only a third of their face value, and it was no time to erect costly public buildings. Gov- ernors and rulers in general have thought too little of the burdens they put upon overtaxed people, since the rich shift their taxes upon tenants and consumers.
The condition of New Hampshire in 1730 is shown in answer to queries sent from the lords of trade and plantations. The trade of the province was almost entirely in lumber and fish. Timber from oak, pine, hemlock, ash, beech and birch was manufactured into beams, plank, knees, clap-boards, shingles and staves, and sometimes into house-frames. Such commod- ities were sent to Europe and the West India islands to the value of about one thousand pounds sterling, and the coast trade in timber and lumber amounted to five thousand pounds. From the West India islands the province received rum, sugar, mo- lasses and cotton, and from Spain and Portugal came vessels laden with salt in exchange for fish. British manufactures to the value of five thousand pounds came in generally by way of
6 N. H. Prov. Papers, IV. 837.
279
A HISTORY
Boston. The seafaring men numbered only forty, and five ships of one hundred tons burden belonged to the province. There were three or four hundred tons of other shipping that traded in Portsmouth annually. The number of inhabitants of the pro- vince was ten thousand whites and two hundred blacks. At that time there were no Indians living permanently in New Hamp- shire and none nearer than the eastern parts of Maine. The militia numbered eighteen hundred, consisting of two regiments of foot, with a troop of horse in each. There was one fort, greatly in need of repair, and not a barrel of gunpowder in it. The revenue of the province amounted to three hundred and ninety-six pounds raised by tax on liquors, and three or four barrels of gunpowder were paid by shipping as powder money. This was expended at the fort. All other revenue came from polls and estates. The ordinary expense of the government was about fifteen hundred pounds in time of peace. The judges, justices, sheriffs and clerks had only the fixed fees of their sev- eral offices and drew nothing from the public treasury. The governor's salary was six hundred pounds in depreciated cur- rency and he commissioned all civil and military officers, except the council appointed by the king, the recorder of deeds chosen by the general assembly, the clerks of courts nominated by the judges, and town officers chosen by the towns at their annual meetings.7
During this period several new towns were incorporated. Among them was Durham, May 15, 1732, formerly a part of Dover and known as Oyster River. It had long been a separate parish and the Rev. John Buss served here many years as min- ister and physician. The church was organized in 1717 and the eccentric and able Hugh Adams became its first settled minister. The town made as much trouble for him as he made for the town, several law-suits between them having arisen. Saw-mills, ship-building and agriculture gave the town considerable pros- perity and prominence in the early days, and many of its leading citizens will be mentioned in the subsequent history of the state. We have already seen that it suffered more than any other set- tlement in the Indian wars. This town contains the oldest house
7 N. H. Prov. Papers, IV. 532-3.
280
NEW HAMPSHIRE
in the state built in 1649 by Captain Valentine Hill. It is also the seat of New Hampshire College.
The government of Massachusetts granted to John Coffin and eighty others of Newbury a tract of land seven miles square, on the northern border of Penacook, now Concord. This tract was called Contoocook, from the Indian name of the river. It was incorporated by New Hampshire as Boscawen, in 1760, in honor of Sir Edward Boscawen, an English admiral. The set- tlement of this town was begun in 1734 by Nathaniel Danforth, Moses Burbank, Stephen Gerrish, Edward Emery and others, who built a log fort one hundred feet square. This was much needed in the subsequent Indian war. Within the limits of this town is the monument to Hannah Dustin, mentioned earlier in this work. The town of Webster was formed from the western portion of Boscawen, July 3, 1860, and so named in honor of Daniel Webster.
Chapter XIV CONTROVERSY ABOUT BOUNDARY LINES
Chapter XIV
CONTROVERSY ABOUT BOUNDARY LINES.
Encroachments of Massachusetts-Importance of the Issue-Rindge and Thomlinson, Agents-Commissioners Appointed by the King-Attitude of Governor Belcher-Meeting at Hampton-Claims of Both Provinces- Meeting of Two Legislatures at Hampton Falls-Points in Dispute- Reference of the Main Question to the King-Prominent Features of Historical Interest-Appeals, Petitions and Delays-Decision of the King in Council-Chagrin of Massachusetts-Ex Parte Survey of the Lines -George Mitchell, Richard Hazzen and Walter Bryant, Surveyors- Mistake in the Variation of the Needle-New Hampshire's Unexpected Gain of Territory-Survey of 1825-Varnum's Monuments-Determina- tion of the Jurisdictional Line in 1889-Re-survey and Extension of the Line between New Hampshire and Maine-The West bank of Connecti- cut River the Boundary between New Hampshire and Vermont.
T HIS subject was so thoroughly considered by Dr. Belknap and so much has been written upon it since his time that little more can now be said. The controversy dates from the first settlements in the two provinces and had its origin in the grasping ambition of Massachusetts. During the administra- tions of governors Shute and Belcher carefully planned encroachments were made by the government of Massachusetts upon territory claimed by New Hampshire. Grants of thirty towns were made in the valleys of the Merrimack and Connec- ticut rivers and region lying between, and settlements were made therein by Massachusetts people. The question of jurisdiction only was in controversy. It was believed that the first settlers would continue to hold their improved lands, whatever final decision might be reached about the lines of the two provinces. Much earlier Massachusetts had granted the townships of Salisbury, Haverhill and Dracut, extending their limits much further north than three miles from the Merrimack, and no serious objection had been made by New Hampshire, since for the most part the claim of the latter had been for a line running due west from a point three miles north of the mouth of that river. The settlement of Londonderry in 1719 brought the issue
283
284
NEW HAMPSHIRE
more clearly into public view. Conflicts arose between people of that town and those of Haverhill, and numerous arrests were made of settlers in Londonderry, who were carried to courts in Essex county for trial. These vexations cost the town of Londonderry alone about one thousand pounds. All along the southern boundary of New Hampshire, from the ocean to Paw- tucket falls, settlers did not know whether to pay taxes in Massachusetts or in New Hampshire.
But the main question was that of jurisdiction. What gov- ernment should make the grants in the northern valley of the Merrimack and beyond? Was New Hampshire to be a small and feeble colony, surrounded by Massachusetts, or was it to become the equal of its southern neighbor in extent of territory? Many felt that New Hampshire, in the former case, could not main- tain its independence. Both provinces had one governor, but he lived in Boston and visited the northern province only twice a year for a short time. New Hampshire wanted to be entirely separated from Massachusetts and have a governor of its own, but it was too small and poor to support such a luxury according to the style that gentleman demanded. With enlargement of borders and influx of settlers it was thought that New Hamp- shire would obtain and be able to maintain an independent head to its government. Perhaps Benning Wentworth already had ambition to fill the chief seat of power in his native town and province and this may have made him and his relatives the principal opponents of Governor Belcher, who with the major- ity of his council sought annexation of the province to Massa- chusetts, whereby all boundary disputes would be settled. The continued existence of New Hampshire as a separate province was at stake. Therefore the lower house continually agitated in favor of a settlement of the boundary, and it appointed and paid its agents in London, without the consent of council or governor.
The agent chosen by New Hampshire's house of represent- atives, in spite of non-concurrence of the council, was Captain John Rindge, a merchant of Portsmouth, whom Governor Belcher alludes to as "the Ipswich lad." He moved to Ports- mouth from Ipswich in 1700 and married Ann, daughter of Jotham Odiorne. He became a member of the House and later
285
A HISTORY
of the Council, dying in 1740, when Belcher wrote of him, "The clan won't presently find such another able gamecock.1 Captain Rindge was given authority to choose a substitute, if necessary, and he could not have made a better choice than he did, for Captain John Thomlinson, merchant of London, cared for the interests of New Hampshire as he might have cared for his own ancestral acres. He seems to have had a winning way with the king's advisers, and he was in argument more than a match for Francis Wilks, agent for Massachusetts. Rindge was ap- pointed agent in 1731, after the failure of commissioners, who met at Newbury, to arrive at any agreement.
Governor Belcher seems at first to have been impressed with the fairness and justice of New Hampshire's claims. He thus wrote to the Lords of Trade January 13, 1732-3:
Although, my Lords, I am a Massachusetts man, yet I think this Province alone is culpable on this head. N. Hampshire has all along been frank & ready to pay exact duty & obedience to the King's order, and has mani- fested a great inclination to peace & good neighborhood. But in return the Massachusetts Province have thrown unreasonable obstacles in the way of any settlement, and altho' they have for 2 or 3 years past been making offers to settle with N. Hampshire they will not do so with them, which seems to me a plain argument that the leading men of the Massachusetts Assembly are conscious to themselves of continual incroachments they are making upon their neighbours of N. Hampshire, and so dare not come to a settlement.2
He writes also to Lieutenant Governor Dunbar, "Really the Massachusetts have treated your people in a barbarous manner," but later on his tone changes. He wishes that the "line wretches" had a line around their necks, and in 1739 he writes to his wife's brother, Richard Partridge, "Had it not been for the hopes the clan of New Hampshire entertained of gaining some advantage against the Governor in the controversy, I am sensible they had never given themselves any trouble about it."3 The fact that he sanctioned the granting by Massachusetts of so many towns within limits claimed by New Hampshire was a convincing argument that Belcher really favored the claims of the former province. The loss of the townships claimed on the
1 Coll. of Mass. Hist. Soc'y, VII. p. 345.
2 Coll. of Mass. Hist. Soc'y, Sixth Series, VI., 251 ; N. H. Prov. Papers, IV., p. 649.
3 Coll. of Mass. Hist. Soc'y, VII. 249.
286
NEW HAMPSHIRE
northern border, speedily followed by the transference of several townships, including Bristol, Tiverton and Little Compton, to the colony of Rhode Island, had a tendency to disgust the people of Massachusetts with the leadership of Governor Belcher, and he easily foresaw the issue.
Mr. John Thomlinson, assisted by Ferdinand John Paris, a shrewd solicitor of London, on the fifteenth of February, 1733, presented a petition to the lords for trade and plantations, the main object of which was, that the precise spot should be determined where the southern boundary line of New Hampshire should begin and in what direction it should run, according to the terms of the original charter. The petition suggested that the spot should be three miles north of the mouth of the Mer- rimack river and that the direction should be west, parallel to the south boundary line of Massachusetts, which is west six and a half degrees north for variation.
A hearing was granted before the Crown Solicitor, and Massachusetts made no argument concerning the point of de- parture in fixing the boundary line. Therefore the solicitor reported that the line should begin, according to the charter of William and Mary, where the counsel for New Hampshire sug- gested, but nothing was said about the direction of the line. The report was approved by the king's council in 1735, and after long delays it was determined that twenty commissioners, chosen from the councilors of New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Nova Scotia, should be appointed to determine the bound- ary line, of whom five should constitute a quorum; "that they should meet at Hampton, New Hampshire, on the first day of August, 1737; that each province should send to the commis- sioners, at their first meeting, the names of two public officers, on whom any notice, summons, or final judgment might be served ; and at the same time should exhibit, in writing, a plain and full state of their respective claims, copies of which should be mutually exchanged; that if either province should neglect to send in the names of their officers, or the full state of their demands, at the time appointed, then the commissioners should proceed ex parte ; and that when the commissioners should have made and signed their final determination, they should send copies to the public officers of each province and then
287
A HISTORY
should adjourn for six weeks, that either party might enter their appeal."4
The board of Trade wrote to Governor Belcher, that he should direct the assemblies of each of the provinces to appoint their two public officers and prepare their demands by the time the commissioners were to meet. It was feared that he would fail to give due direction to the assembly of New Hampshire, to the end that their committee and officers should not be duly chosen and present at the first meeting of the commissioners, since Belcher was reported to have said that the lines in question would never be run. Therefore Mr. Thomlinson and his solic- itor, Mr. Paris, took extreme care to inform their friends in Portsmouth by sending to them duplicates of instructions given and to warn them to have their officials in readiness. The event proved as was feared. Governor Belcher prorogued both assem- blies to the fourth of August, four days after the commissioners were to meet at Hampton, after giving an opportunity to the general court at Boston to name their two public officers, who were Josiah Willard and Edward Winslow. The assembly of New Hampshire, at its session in April, appointed a committee of eight, empowered "to prepare witnesses, pleas and allegations, papers and records, to be laid before the commissioners ; to pro- vide for their reception and entertainment, and to draw upon the treasurer for such supplies of money as might be needful."5 The committee appointed by the council consisted of Shadrach Walton, George Jaffrey, Jotham Odiorne and Theodore Atkin- son; the house chose Andrew Wiggin, John Rindge, Thomas Packer and James Jaffrey.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.